On becoming a 'twitphobe'

Yesterday, Clarice Feldman detailed how the word "oikophobia", shortened to "oiks", is the term most suited to describe liberal elites who hold the rest of us in intellectual and cultural contempt. These people are offended by the familiar--our values,our patriotism, our common sense ; in short most everything which surrounds them. This explains why they are so often upside down in the polls-- seventy percent of the population are now against the ground zero mosque. "Oiks" is a good term, but it doesn't quite describe the lack of seriousness, and the intellectual dishonesty associated with those who throw epithets like "racist', "islamaphobe", and "homophobes" out at anyone who disagrees with them. Tossing hateful words is a lot easier than making a good argument.

Earlier I had tried to describe these elites as "useful idiots". A term coined by Lenin who used it to describe intellectuals in other societies who act against their own countries self-interest, and to the benefit of his own agenda. This term does not quite do these people justice either. It now confers too much seriousness --a want of something better, even though the means and ends neither match up or add up. Our mudslinging liberals deserve something better, more derisive. For this I now propose the term "twit." The dictionary definition variously describes one so defined as "not serious, silly, a fool." What better?

Anyone like Mayor Bloomberg who states that 100% of the Ground Zero families support the mosque cannot be serious. He is clearly a twit. David Axelrod, according to "Politico", when justifying the site of the mosque to the President, related that his relatives, eastern European Jews, suffered religious persecution, and that we must never allow such a thing to happen here. How he could reconfigure the abject horror experienced by these European Jews into our own political debate, involving the suggestion, just the suggestion, that Muslims consider moving their mosque a few blocks uptown is beyond belief. Particularly when these same Muslims have such a remarkable intolerance of Jews. Pitiful. Even his dear departed relatives could be forgiven for looking down and uttering "what a twit we begot."

Then there are the media pundits, people like : Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Rick Sanchez, Eugene Robinson, and their like. For them, no sense having any rigorous intellectual discussions when, feelings, thrills, tribalism, and above all, name calling can take its place. What better word that "twits?"

I think that those of us on the other end of the name calling, can agree on the one name we won't mind being called: "twitphobe". Word says it all.

Yesterday, Clarice Feldman detailed how the word "oikophobia", shortened to "oiks", is the term most suited to describe liberal elites who hold the rest of us in intellectual and cultural contempt. These people are offended by the familiar--our values,our patriotism, our common sense ; in short most everything which surrounds them. This explains why they are so often upside down in the polls-- seventy percent of the population are now against the ground zero mosque. "Oiks" is a good term, but it doesn't quite describe the lack of seriousness, and the intellectual dishonesty associated with those who throw epithets like "racist', "islamaphobe", and "homophobes" out at anyone who disagrees with them. Tossing hateful words is a lot easier than making a good argument.

Earlier I had tried to describe these elites as "useful idiots". A term coined by Lenin who used it to describe intellectuals in other societies who act against their own countries self-interest, and to the benefit of his own agenda. This term does not quite do these people justice either. It now confers too much seriousness --a want of something better, even though the means and ends neither match up or add up. Our mudslinging liberals deserve something better, more derisive. For this I now propose the term "twit." The dictionary definition variously describes one so defined as "not serious, silly, a fool." What better?

Anyone like Mayor Bloomberg who states that 100% of the Ground Zero families support the mosque cannot be serious. He is clearly a twit. David Axelrod, according to "Politico", when justifying the site of the mosque to the President, related that his relatives, eastern European Jews, suffered religious persecution, and that we must never allow such a thing to happen here. How he could reconfigure the abject horror experienced by these European Jews into our own political debate, involving the suggestion, just the suggestion, that Muslims consider moving their mosque a few blocks uptown is beyond belief. Particularly when these same Muslims have such a remarkable intolerance of Jews. Pitiful. Even his dear departed relatives could be forgiven for looking down and uttering "what a twit we begot."

Then there are the media pundits, people like : Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Rick Sanchez, Eugene Robinson, and their like. For them, no sense having any rigorous intellectual discussions when, feelings, thrills, tribalism, and above all, name calling can take its place. What better word that "twits?"

I think that those of us on the other end of the name calling, can agree on the one name we won't mind being called: "twitphobe". Word says it all.